DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Coveo vs. Hypertable vs. TigerGraph

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Coveo vs. Hypertable vs. TigerGraph

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Hypertable has stopped its further development with March 2016 and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

AI-powered hosted search, recommendation and personalization platform providing tools for both low-code and full-code development

An open source BigTable implementation based on distributed file systems such as Hadoop

A complete, distributed, parallel graph computing platform supporting web-scale data analytics in real-time

Primary database model

DB-Engines Ranking measures the popularity of database management systems
Trend Chart

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	2.11
Rank	#118	Overall
	#11	Search engines

Score	1.80
Rank	#138	Overall
	#13	Graph DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.coveo.com

www.tigergraph.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.coveo.com

docs.tigergraph.com

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Coveo

Hypertable Inc.

Initial release

2012

2009

2017

Current release

0.9.8.11, March 2016

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

commercial

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

C++

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux
OS X
Windows

an inofficial Windows port is available

Linux

Data scheme

yes

hybrid - fields need to be configured prior to indexing, but relationships can be exploited at query time without pre-configuration

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

XML support

Some form of processing data in XML format, e.g. support for XML data structures, and/or support for XPath, XQuery or XSLT.

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

restricted

only exact value or prefix value scans

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

C++ API
Thrift

GSQL (TigerGraph Query Language)
Kafka
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C#
Java
JavaScript
Python

C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

yes

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor on file system level

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

ACID

yes

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

granular access controls, API key management, content filters

Role-based access control

More information provided by the system vendor

We invite representatives of system vendors to contact us for updating and extending the system information,
and for displaying vendor-provided information such as key customers, competitive advantages and market metrics.